Home
Stop me if you’ve heard these ones before!
This is from an older post; which may or may not have been deleted in the other forum so I thought I'd resurrect it.
I thought I’d look at a few of the common arguments we get here and elsewhere about various low-carbohydrate issues and try and deal with them in one post.
We are all different!
Well, on a superficial level we are; we have different names and you and I are more handsome than Eddie, for instance, but on a biological level we are most certainly not different. Our metabolisms work in exactly the same way; what we eat and what energy we expend will differ but it’s the same processes running. You and I, at the most dissimilar end of the scale, share 99% of our DNA; when I say ‘share’ I don’t mean the gene sequences are similar – they are identical. This means that the way you metabolise glucose is exactly the same way as I do. What works for you, will work for me unless there is some additional factor operating. So, if the logic of a low carb diet works for one person it will also work for another. The cry of ‘we are all different’ then is really just a way of saying; ‘I don’t want to do what you are suggesting’; it is no more a counter argument against a low-carb approach than saying ‘I don’t like the colour blue’ is an argument about the qualities of the colour blue.
The only measurable difference between diabetics is the degree to which their pancreatic function has declined (from not very much to completely) and their varying levels of insulin resistance. That will affect how sensitive to carbohydrate we are but it does not mean that those that are less sensitive would not benefit from avoiding carbohydrates. Which leads to the next point:
I eat carbohydrates and get good results so why should I stop eating them?
I ate 50 grams of carbohydrate at every meal from the age of 10 until about 30. I did not die. I got quite good diabetic control according to my check-ups; normally in the 7’s and some high 6’s. I also developed peripheral retinopathy and mild nephropathy. And so there is your answer right there. On a low-carb diet those ‘irreversible conditions’ are improving. The levels we are being given to aim for are wrong and are far far too high.
Most people, to be fair, who use the above argument though are either type 2 or type 1.5 who still have some pancreatic function; they can eat carbs because their bodies are still trying to cope with the glucose peaks and troughs that inevitably follow. They are not lying; they probably can eat cereals and toast and the like and still get good HbA1cs. The point being though, that things would be much better for them if they gave their poor beaten exhausted pancreas a break and just stopped eating all that stuff in the first place, because sooner or later something is going to give.
The last segment of people who say this are those who are unable to make the mental jump from the world of plenty of starchy food to low carbing. Have a look at their HbA1c’s if they’ll tell you them (which they often won’t) and/or look at what diabetic complications they are labouring under. Those people who have gone through all the facts that we have and yet still won’t try to control their condition by dropping carbs are the people worry me the most; they are the Monty Python & The Holy Grail Black Knights; ‘it’s just a flesh wound...’. It’s good to be positive of course, but not when you’ve just had your arm chopped off; denial comes in many forms I fear.
I’m not going to let diabetes rule how I live my life
I’m not going to let speeding traffic rule how I chose to walk across this motorway. I’m my own person, blah, blah, blah. Crunch. Dead. Diabetes is a chronic complaint, it needs to be treated with some respect or else it will get you and it will do you in just as surely as that speeding car you are ignoring will.
Cheesecake is what insulin is there for!
This is from an actual forum quote. I can’t really bring myself to say much about this; I wish I could eat cheesecake; I can’t. You make a choice; if you want to eat this stuff then your health is going to suffer; even if you get your balancing doses perfectly pitched. Insulin is a necessity, but we don’t want too much of the stuff slushing around in our bodies laying down fats and doing its thing. And by the way; you won’t perfectly pitch your balancing dose.
Carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet
Nope, we’ve talked about this so many times. Google it; and open your eyes. This is where Karl Popper and his black swan theory comes in; it goes like this; if you make a statement such as ‘all swans are white’ as soon as you find a single example disproving the statement then the whole statement collapses. If out of 1,000 swans one is black then the ‘all swans are white’ hypothesis must fail.
If carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet then anyone who can eat a healthy diet without carbohydrate is the carb black swan equivalent; it only takes one person. And if you want we could start with Stefansson and his all-meat diet study in the 1920’s and have him as that one person. But really there’s no need; as we all obviously know of thousands and thousands. Let’s not make statements using the word ‘essential’ here anymore then eh?
There are no carbohydrate deficiency diseases; we need a limited amount of glucose but that can be made by our livers from protein. We need no carbohydrate at all.
If you low carb then you will be eating fats and protein which will damage your heart and kidneys respectively
May I introduce you to my friends ‘cause’ and ‘effect’? Damaged kidneys cannot process protein as effectively as undamaged kidneys. You can alleviate the problem by eating less protein so that the failing kidneys won’t fail to process the protein to such a degree. What damages kidneys is not eating protein though; it is uncontrolled blood sugars. Damaged kidneys are the effect of blood glucose imbalance. Protein is not the cause.
On the heart side the longest running dietary study in the world (correct me if I’m wrong!) the Framingham study in Massachusetts concluded that ‘there is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group… ’. Now, we are seeing the drip drip drip of positive news about saturated fats turn into a trickle, soon hopefully into a flood and then 10 years from now the NHS will revise their wrong-headed stance.
If you don’t eat fruit you’ll get scurvy
One of the key things our friends on the other side of the chasm bring up is the 'fact' that a low-carb diet is lacking in variety and essential vitamins. By this they mean vitamin C as that is the only one that is possibly limited in a diet consisting mostly of protein and fat. Now, I know that most of us feast on green vegetables too, but that would spoil even the vitamin C deficiency point from our beloved dietician friends. So let's pretend for the moment that we do only eat meat.
This would presumably lead to scurvy as vitamin C is contained in animal foods in such small quantities that nutritionists have considered animal foods to be insufficient as a viable source for it.
However the famous Stefansson all-meat diet study (mimicking the Inuit diet) in the 1920's showed that no vitamin deficiency arose after a year of a monitored tested and controlled all meat diet.
Gary Taubes in his rather wonderful ‘The Diet Delusion’ provides an explanation of this as follows: ' The vitamin-C molecule is similar in configuration to glucose and other sugars in the body. It is shuttled from the bloodstream into the cells by the same insulin-dependent transport system used by glucose. Glucose and vitamin C compete in this cellular-uptake process, like strangers trying to flag down the same taxicab simultaneously. Because glucose is greatly favoured in the contest, the uptake of vitamin C by cells is "globally inhibited" when blood-sugar levels are elevated. In effect, glucose regulates how much vitamin C is taken up by the cells according to the University of Massachusetts nutritionist John Cunningham. If we increase blood-sugar levels, the cellular uptake of vitamin C will drop accordingly. Glucose also impairs the re-absorption of vitamin C by the kidney, and so, the higher the blood sugar, the more vitamin C will be lost in the urine. Infusing insulin into experimental subject has been shown to cause a 'marked fall' in the vitamin C levels in the circulation'.
He goes on to say; ' in other words, there is a significant reason to believe that the key factor determining the level of vitamin C in our cells and tissues is not how much or how little we happen to be consuming in our diet, but whether the starches and refined carbohydrates in our diet serve to flush vitamin C out of our system while simultaneously inhibiting the use of what vitamin C we do have.'
So, if you eat your balanced diet you have to eat fruit and vegetables to make up for the flushing of vitamin C from your system, if you drop the carbs then the vitamins will take care of themselves.
So carbs are not only bereft of vitamins they help get rid of the ones we've already consumed...!
If you low carb then you will be calcium deficient
Here is Lisa Shea from Bella Online on this and she makes good sense to me;
“A myth still believed by some is that a diet that has large amounts of protein will somehow "leach" all the calcium from your bones. This has been proven NOT to be true.
The root of this myth is a study done in the 80s with fractionated protein powder. Apparently people who took this powder then experienced calcium loss from their bones. Note that these people weren't taking vitamins to supplement their diet.
As just about any nutritionist can tell you, eating powders of food parts is NOT the same as eating the real, nutritious original food item. Also, having an issue arise when you eat one thing (powder) INSTEAD OF another (real meat) could be really showing that it was the LACK of the second food that caused the problem.
So to further explore the issue, long term studies were done with regular meat-eaters who ate meat in a normal way - whether it was burgers, grilled steaks, pork chops or whatever. The studies found that there was NO calcium loss, either in the short term or long term.
What the studies showed was that calcium (and other minerals) in your body need to have vitamins A and D in your system in order to be used properly. Protein powder doesn't have those vitamins, while animal fats do. So a person just taking protein powder in essence suffered from a vitamin A and D deficiency because they no longer were getting an adequate supply of those vitamins in their diet. They lost the calcium from their system because of the vitamin deficiency. A person eating a normal diet of beef, pork and chicken gets vitamin A and D from the fats in those meats, and therefore does NOT experience the vitamin deficiency syndrome.
Pretty much the only natural sources of Vitamin D are animal fats, fish fats and fish oils. Most adults are at least mildly lactose intolerant, so the Vitamin D artificially added into milk does us little good.
Vitamin A is found primarily in eggs, liver, meats, cheese and milk. It is also found in carrots, spinach and kale.
So the primary message of the studies on protein and calcium is to TAKE YOUR VITAMINS because it is a lack of vitamins that causes problems for your body. The secondary message is that eating meats does NOT cause any calcium issues. If anything, eating meats helps ensure that you get your nutrients in a natural manner, rather than in a pill form.”
Next...
Fibre, fibre, fibre
I’m running out of steam a bit now; but when you think about it; what is the point of eating something that isn’t absorbed and potentially damages your colon? Here’s a link to Dr Mike:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fiber/a-cautionary-tale-of-mucus-fore-and-aft/
My doctors and dietician are highly trained professionals; who am I to question what they tell me?
You are absolving responsibility for your own health and wellbeing to someone else; we should by all means listen to advice we are given, but advice is different from an order. We need to assess and to question what we are told if we to gain knowledge and move forward. There is such a thing as bad advice.
To back this up; here is something I lazily copied from the internet;
“The June 10, 2000 issue of the British Medical journal reports on an interesting statistic that has occurred in Israel. It seems that three months ago physicians in public hospitals implemented a program of sanctions in response to a labour dispute over a contract proposal by the government. The article stated that the Israel Medical Association began an action in March to protest against the treasury’s proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract for doctors. Since then, the medical doctors have cancelled hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics and have postponed tens of thousands of elective operations.
To find out whether the industrial action was affecting deaths in the country, the Jerusalem Post interviewed non-profit making Jewish burial societies, which perform funerals for the vast majority of Israelis. Hananya Shahor, the veteran director of Jerusalems Kehilat Yerushalayim burial society said, "The number of funerals we have performed has fallen drastically." Meir Adler, manager of the Shamgar Funeral Parlour, which buries most other residents of Jerusalem, declared with much more certainty: "There definitely is a connection between the doctors sanctions and fewer deaths. We saw the same thing in 1983 when the Israel Medical Association applied sanctions for four and a half months."”
If you feel you really must listen to and do exactly as highly trained professionals say, might I just interject here; I am a highly trained lawyer and I advise you to send me all your money; sell everything, liquidate all your assets and send it to me. You’ll feel better having done what you’ve been told. If you won’t do that, then why should you do anything else a professional tells you? If you will do that – pm me and I’ll send details of where to forward my money…
Best
Dillinger
This is from an older post; which may or may not have been deleted in the other forum so I thought I'd resurrect it.
I thought I’d look at a few of the common arguments we get here and elsewhere about various low-carbohydrate issues and try and deal with them in one post.
We are all different!
Well, on a superficial level we are; we have different names and you and I are more handsome than Eddie, for instance, but on a biological level we are most certainly not different. Our metabolisms work in exactly the same way; what we eat and what energy we expend will differ but it’s the same processes running. You and I, at the most dissimilar end of the scale, share 99% of our DNA; when I say ‘share’ I don’t mean the gene sequences are similar – they are identical. This means that the way you metabolise glucose is exactly the same way as I do. What works for you, will work for me unless there is some additional factor operating. So, if the logic of a low carb diet works for one person it will also work for another. The cry of ‘we are all different’ then is really just a way of saying; ‘I don’t want to do what you are suggesting’; it is no more a counter argument against a low-carb approach than saying ‘I don’t like the colour blue’ is an argument about the qualities of the colour blue.
The only measurable difference between diabetics is the degree to which their pancreatic function has declined (from not very much to completely) and their varying levels of insulin resistance. That will affect how sensitive to carbohydrate we are but it does not mean that those that are less sensitive would not benefit from avoiding carbohydrates. Which leads to the next point:
I eat carbohydrates and get good results so why should I stop eating them?
I ate 50 grams of carbohydrate at every meal from the age of 10 until about 30. I did not die. I got quite good diabetic control according to my check-ups; normally in the 7’s and some high 6’s. I also developed peripheral retinopathy and mild nephropathy. And so there is your answer right there. On a low-carb diet those ‘irreversible conditions’ are improving. The levels we are being given to aim for are wrong and are far far too high.
Most people, to be fair, who use the above argument though are either type 2 or type 1.5 who still have some pancreatic function; they can eat carbs because their bodies are still trying to cope with the glucose peaks and troughs that inevitably follow. They are not lying; they probably can eat cereals and toast and the like and still get good HbA1cs. The point being though, that things would be much better for them if they gave their poor beaten exhausted pancreas a break and just stopped eating all that stuff in the first place, because sooner or later something is going to give.
The last segment of people who say this are those who are unable to make the mental jump from the world of plenty of starchy food to low carbing. Have a look at their HbA1c’s if they’ll tell you them (which they often won’t) and/or look at what diabetic complications they are labouring under. Those people who have gone through all the facts that we have and yet still won’t try to control their condition by dropping carbs are the people worry me the most; they are the Monty Python & The Holy Grail Black Knights; ‘it’s just a flesh wound...’. It’s good to be positive of course, but not when you’ve just had your arm chopped off; denial comes in many forms I fear.
I’m not going to let diabetes rule how I live my life
I’m not going to let speeding traffic rule how I chose to walk across this motorway. I’m my own person, blah, blah, blah. Crunch. Dead. Diabetes is a chronic complaint, it needs to be treated with some respect or else it will get you and it will do you in just as surely as that speeding car you are ignoring will.
Cheesecake is what insulin is there for!
This is from an actual forum quote. I can’t really bring myself to say much about this; I wish I could eat cheesecake; I can’t. You make a choice; if you want to eat this stuff then your health is going to suffer; even if you get your balancing doses perfectly pitched. Insulin is a necessity, but we don’t want too much of the stuff slushing around in our bodies laying down fats and doing its thing. And by the way; you won’t perfectly pitch your balancing dose.
Carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet
Nope, we’ve talked about this so many times. Google it; and open your eyes. This is where Karl Popper and his black swan theory comes in; it goes like this; if you make a statement such as ‘all swans are white’ as soon as you find a single example disproving the statement then the whole statement collapses. If out of 1,000 swans one is black then the ‘all swans are white’ hypothesis must fail.
If carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet then anyone who can eat a healthy diet without carbohydrate is the carb black swan equivalent; it only takes one person. And if you want we could start with Stefansson and his all-meat diet study in the 1920’s and have him as that one person. But really there’s no need; as we all obviously know of thousands and thousands. Let’s not make statements using the word ‘essential’ here anymore then eh?
There are no carbohydrate deficiency diseases; we need a limited amount of glucose but that can be made by our livers from protein. We need no carbohydrate at all.
If you low carb then you will be eating fats and protein which will damage your heart and kidneys respectively
May I introduce you to my friends ‘cause’ and ‘effect’? Damaged kidneys cannot process protein as effectively as undamaged kidneys. You can alleviate the problem by eating less protein so that the failing kidneys won’t fail to process the protein to such a degree. What damages kidneys is not eating protein though; it is uncontrolled blood sugars. Damaged kidneys are the effect of blood glucose imbalance. Protein is not the cause.
On the heart side the longest running dietary study in the world (correct me if I’m wrong!) the Framingham study in Massachusetts concluded that ‘there is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group… ’. Now, we are seeing the drip drip drip of positive news about saturated fats turn into a trickle, soon hopefully into a flood and then 10 years from now the NHS will revise their wrong-headed stance.
If you don’t eat fruit you’ll get scurvy
One of the key things our friends on the other side of the chasm bring up is the 'fact' that a low-carb diet is lacking in variety and essential vitamins. By this they mean vitamin C as that is the only one that is possibly limited in a diet consisting mostly of protein and fat. Now, I know that most of us feast on green vegetables too, but that would spoil even the vitamin C deficiency point from our beloved dietician friends. So let's pretend for the moment that we do only eat meat.
This would presumably lead to scurvy as vitamin C is contained in animal foods in such small quantities that nutritionists have considered animal foods to be insufficient as a viable source for it.
However the famous Stefansson all-meat diet study (mimicking the Inuit diet) in the 1920's showed that no vitamin deficiency arose after a year of a monitored tested and controlled all meat diet.
Gary Taubes in his rather wonderful ‘The Diet Delusion’ provides an explanation of this as follows: ' The vitamin-C molecule is similar in configuration to glucose and other sugars in the body. It is shuttled from the bloodstream into the cells by the same insulin-dependent transport system used by glucose. Glucose and vitamin C compete in this cellular-uptake process, like strangers trying to flag down the same taxicab simultaneously. Because glucose is greatly favoured in the contest, the uptake of vitamin C by cells is "globally inhibited" when blood-sugar levels are elevated. In effect, glucose regulates how much vitamin C is taken up by the cells according to the University of Massachusetts nutritionist John Cunningham. If we increase blood-sugar levels, the cellular uptake of vitamin C will drop accordingly. Glucose also impairs the re-absorption of vitamin C by the kidney, and so, the higher the blood sugar, the more vitamin C will be lost in the urine. Infusing insulin into experimental subject has been shown to cause a 'marked fall' in the vitamin C levels in the circulation'.
He goes on to say; ' in other words, there is a significant reason to believe that the key factor determining the level of vitamin C in our cells and tissues is not how much or how little we happen to be consuming in our diet, but whether the starches and refined carbohydrates in our diet serve to flush vitamin C out of our system while simultaneously inhibiting the use of what vitamin C we do have.'
So, if you eat your balanced diet you have to eat fruit and vegetables to make up for the flushing of vitamin C from your system, if you drop the carbs then the vitamins will take care of themselves.
So carbs are not only bereft of vitamins they help get rid of the ones we've already consumed...!
If you low carb then you will be calcium deficient
Here is Lisa Shea from Bella Online on this and she makes good sense to me;
“A myth still believed by some is that a diet that has large amounts of protein will somehow "leach" all the calcium from your bones. This has been proven NOT to be true.
The root of this myth is a study done in the 80s with fractionated protein powder. Apparently people who took this powder then experienced calcium loss from their bones. Note that these people weren't taking vitamins to supplement their diet.
As just about any nutritionist can tell you, eating powders of food parts is NOT the same as eating the real, nutritious original food item. Also, having an issue arise when you eat one thing (powder) INSTEAD OF another (real meat) could be really showing that it was the LACK of the second food that caused the problem.
So to further explore the issue, long term studies were done with regular meat-eaters who ate meat in a normal way - whether it was burgers, grilled steaks, pork chops or whatever. The studies found that there was NO calcium loss, either in the short term or long term.
What the studies showed was that calcium (and other minerals) in your body need to have vitamins A and D in your system in order to be used properly. Protein powder doesn't have those vitamins, while animal fats do. So a person just taking protein powder in essence suffered from a vitamin A and D deficiency because they no longer were getting an adequate supply of those vitamins in their diet. They lost the calcium from their system because of the vitamin deficiency. A person eating a normal diet of beef, pork and chicken gets vitamin A and D from the fats in those meats, and therefore does NOT experience the vitamin deficiency syndrome.
Pretty much the only natural sources of Vitamin D are animal fats, fish fats and fish oils. Most adults are at least mildly lactose intolerant, so the Vitamin D artificially added into milk does us little good.
Vitamin A is found primarily in eggs, liver, meats, cheese and milk. It is also found in carrots, spinach and kale.
So the primary message of the studies on protein and calcium is to TAKE YOUR VITAMINS because it is a lack of vitamins that causes problems for your body. The secondary message is that eating meats does NOT cause any calcium issues. If anything, eating meats helps ensure that you get your nutrients in a natural manner, rather than in a pill form.”
Next...
Fibre, fibre, fibre
I’m running out of steam a bit now; but when you think about it; what is the point of eating something that isn’t absorbed and potentially damages your colon? Here’s a link to Dr Mike:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fiber/a-cautionary-tale-of-mucus-fore-and-aft/
My doctors and dietician are highly trained professionals; who am I to question what they tell me?
You are absolving responsibility for your own health and wellbeing to someone else; we should by all means listen to advice we are given, but advice is different from an order. We need to assess and to question what we are told if we to gain knowledge and move forward. There is such a thing as bad advice.
To back this up; here is something I lazily copied from the internet;
“The June 10, 2000 issue of the British Medical journal reports on an interesting statistic that has occurred in Israel. It seems that three months ago physicians in public hospitals implemented a program of sanctions in response to a labour dispute over a contract proposal by the government. The article stated that the Israel Medical Association began an action in March to protest against the treasury’s proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract for doctors. Since then, the medical doctors have cancelled hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics and have postponed tens of thousands of elective operations.
To find out whether the industrial action was affecting deaths in the country, the Jerusalem Post interviewed non-profit making Jewish burial societies, which perform funerals for the vast majority of Israelis. Hananya Shahor, the veteran director of Jerusalems Kehilat Yerushalayim burial society said, "The number of funerals we have performed has fallen drastically." Meir Adler, manager of the Shamgar Funeral Parlour, which buries most other residents of Jerusalem, declared with much more certainty: "There definitely is a connection between the doctors sanctions and fewer deaths. We saw the same thing in 1983 when the Israel Medical Association applied sanctions for four and a half months."”
If you feel you really must listen to and do exactly as highly trained professionals say, might I just interject here; I am a highly trained lawyer and I advise you to send me all your money; sell everything, liquidate all your assets and send it to me. You’ll feel better having done what you’ve been told. If you won’t do that, then why should you do anything else a professional tells you? If you will do that – pm me and I’ll send details of where to forward my money…
Best
Dillinger
